KarmicDisaster:It has been a very mild Fall here in Wisconsin, but what concerns me the most is the lack of moisture coming off a very dry Summer. We need the cold weather to kill the mosquitoes.

I think we're sending you a bit of moisture as well as a downward trend in the jet stream to the west of you right now. It's really snowing here, and it should be at least very cold if not snowing in about two days where you are./so, a bit late but who hasn't seen that before?//mild fall here also for what it's worth

Representative of the unwashed masses:common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality

Tell me how the past 4.5 billion years is relevant to a specific atmospheric change that began a couple of centuries ago.

And with how much precision can the last couple centuries be correlated against 4.5 billion years of the geological record?

We have great coverage and resolution in recent times. But you risk losing the forest for the trees...

True.

So how is 4.5 billion years of data relevant to predicting the effects of a significant change occurring over a time frame far shorter than the geologic record can resolve?

common sense is an oxymoron:Representative of the unwashed masses: common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality

Tell me how the past 4.5 billion years is relevant to a specific atmospheric change that began a couple of centuries ago.

And with how much precision can the last couple centuries be correlated against 4.5 billion years of the geological record?

We have great coverage and resolution in recent times. But you risk losing the forest for the trees...

True.

So how is 4.5 billion years of data relevant to predicting the effects of a significant change occurring over a time frame far shorter than the geologic record can resolve?

The point is that if we can see a history of similar rises and falls in temperature or Greenhouse gas concentrations natural processes could be more important than many people realize.

For example Tim Tebow had one great play in the playoffs last year, it doesn't make him the greatest football player of all time.

I fully support developing alternate fuels and reducing pollution. I just don't fully accept that we are totally responsible personally.

Representative of the unwashed masses:The point is that if we can see a history of similar rises and falls in temperature or Greenhouse gas concentrations natural processes could be more important than many people realize.

How would the source of greenhouse gases (natural vs. anthropogenic) affect their effect?

Natural processes can and do affect climate. However, no ongoing natural process can account for the currently observed change in temperature, and any hypothesis invoking such processes must also explain why the well-documented greenhouse effect of CO2 is NOT responsible.

For example Tim Tebow had one great play in the playoffs last year, it doesn't make him the greatest football player of all time.

A single event can't really be compared to an ongoing process.

I fully support developing alternate fuels and reducing pollution. I just don't fully accept that we are totally responsible personally.

Why not? And does anything less than total responsibility absolve humans from blame?

Representative of the unwashed masses:The point is that if we can see a history of similar rises and falls in temperature or Greenhouse gas concentrations natural processes could be more important than many people realize.

Who is 'many people' here? Scientists who have spent decades determining that natural processes don't account for the current warming?

Look, if a marine biologist tells you that fish are dying en masse, do you really think it's so important to point out that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen?

Baryogenesis:justGreg: You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.

The planet's 'climate sensitivity' is the expected temperature increase from a doubling of pre industrial atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at ~390ppm). Studies have shown a range between +1.5 C to +6C or even higher with +3C being the most likely figure. So no, I wouldn't expect to see a spike in warming just yet. The predicted warming is also neither A) instantaneous nor B) monotonically increasing. It's not as if adding CO2 today will automatically mean an increase in temperature tomorrow.

The oceans are also absorbing the vast majority of the added heat. So, if you're looking for data that shows a stronger increase, here:

Representative of the unwashed masses:The point is that if we can see a history of similar rises and falls in temperature or Greenhouse gas concentrations natural processes could be more important than many people realize.

Do you think the folks who study climate have forgotten to include natural processes in their analysis? One of the reasons the scientific community has determined that current warming is driven by humans instead of nature is that they understand the natural forcings at work in our climate and have determined they can't be responsible. For example, the process that drove the 'recent' cycle of ice ages and interglacials is orbital fluctuations, but those operate on timescales of thousands of years, not decades like current warming.

Representative of the unwashed masses:common sense is an oxymoron: Representative of the unwashed masses: common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality

Tell me how the past 4.5 billion years is relevant to a specific atmospheric change that began a couple of centuries ago.

And with how much precision can the last couple centuries be correlated against 4.5 billion years of the geological record?

We have great coverage and resolution in recent times. But you risk losing the forest for the trees...

True.

So how is 4.5 billion years of data relevant to predicting the effects of a significant change occurring over a time frame far shorter than the geologic record can resolve?

The point is that if we can see a history of similar rises and falls in temperature or Greenhouse gas concentrations natural processes could be more important than many people realize.

For example Tim Tebow had one great play in the playoffs last year, it doesn't make him the greatest football player of all time.

I fully support developing alternate fuels and reducing pollution. I just don't fully accept that we are totally responsible personally.

Most energy companies actually do accept the truth on this, and don't make any bones about it. The exceptions are the few with a political axe to grind. Houston, the energy capitol of the entire planet, voted for Obama in '08 and again in '12.

CO2 is a major contributor to climate change. There is no, none, zero argument over this.

The level of CO2 has shot upward - some people call it a "hockey stick", but when you look at it on a the scale used by people who trust geology very closely (like energy companies) it's not a hockey stick, it's Wile E. Coyote running flat-out into the side of a mountain.

Climate change is going to have mind-boggling economic impacts over the next few decades - New York, Florida, New Orleans, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington DC, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, California, Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey might disagree about the timetable. A few inches of water on a few thousand miles of incredibly valuable and populated coastline, lake, and riverfront costs a lot. Again, this is not disputed by any reasonable authority, and the markets reflect this truth.

The world's voters, and their governments will, in large part, do absolutely nothing about this, because at the current time there is no economically or politically feasible alternative to carbon-based fuels. That equation will change only as the cost of alternatives comes down, which does not appear to be immediately happening. My 401k and the cars in my neighbor's driveways - all of them energy people - verify this.

Monday morning, I'll go to work ensuring that a lot of hydrocarbons are burned, creating many hundreds of tons of CO2, in order to sell the product at a (hopefully) handsome profit. I'll comply with all relevant laws, as will my competitors - and I'll try to be more efficient, not for moral reasons, but to make sure my mortgage is paid. Why does anyone need to pretend reality is somehow different than this?

The question conveniently ignored. If anecdotal accounts of the effects of a Volcanic eruption is sufficient enough proof for folks, who's to say there wasn't something similar which happened in the last three years?

MisterTweak:Representative of the unwashed masses: common sense is an oxymoron: Representative of the unwashed masses: common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality

Most energy companies actually do accept the truth on this, and don't make any bones about it. The exceptions are the few with a political axe to grind. Houston, the energy capitol of the entire planet, voted for Obama in '08 and again in '12.

Baryogenesis:Representative of the unwashed masses: The point is that if we can see a history of similar rises and falls in temperature or Greenhouse gas concentrations natural processes could be more important than many people realize.

Do you think the folks who study climate have forgotten to include natural processes in their analysis? One of the reasons the scientific community has determined that current warming is driven by humans instead of nature is that they understand the natural forcings at work in our climate and have determined they can't be responsible. For example, the process that drove the 'recent' cycle of ice ages and interglacials is orbital fluctuations, but those operate on timescales of thousands of years, not decades like current warming.

I fully respect the scientists heck I am one! (Work as a hydrogeologist) its the media and layman public at large I think that don't ponder questions of scale. When hundreds of years of ice core can be an inch or two thick I tend to be cautious in my support for global warming theory.

Water and air pollution are good enough reasons on their own to clean up. Personally I just haven't made the leap that doom and gloom is happenning. That's just my opinion

Jesda:MisterTweak: Representative of the unwashed masses: common sense is an oxymoron: Representative of the unwashed masses: common sense is an oxymoron: bingethinker: 40 years ago I had to endure two weeks of -40 degree weather every winter. Now I don't. Tell me again how awful global warming is.

/and then tell me how your 120 years of measurements relate to 4.5 billion years of reality

Most energy companies actually do accept the truth on this, and don't make any bones about it. The exceptions are the few with a political axe to grind. Houston, the energy capitol of the entire planet, voted for Obama in '08 and again in '12.

A large city full of poor minorities voted for Obama?

NO WAY!

That's gonna cost you an extra 15 cents a gallon when you fill up tomorrow, son.

common sense is an oxymoron:justGreg: Baryogenesis: justGreg: You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.

The planet's 'climate sensitivity' is the expected temperature increase from a doubling of pre industrial atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at ~390ppm). Studies have shown a range between +1.5 C to +6C or even higher with +3C being the most likely figure. So no, I wouldn't expect to see a spike in warming just yet. The predicted warming is also neither A) instantaneous nor B) monotonically increasing. It's not as if adding CO2 today will automatically mean an increase in temperature tomorrow.

The oceans are also absorbing the vast majority of the added heat. So, if you're looking for data that shows a stronger increase, here:

Pretty much every other scientific discipline would laugh at the idea of claiming "studies have shown" when they really mean "speculative academic papers based not on observational data but on unvalidated computer models have claimed". Gotta love climate science, where the bar is low but the arrogance is high.

Um, that graph IS based on observed data.

Problem?

Citation? Looks like a picture from the skeptical science blog, and I'm pretty sure it is based on work from Trenberth using models to try and explain why the global temperatures and SST don't reflect the level of warming the models expect. In other words, pretty much the opposite of observational data, and exactly the kind of marginal methodology I am talking about.

MisterTweak:And it's 82 in houston in mid-december. For the fifth day in a row. So, good news is, being in the energy business, I'd like to thank everyone for cranking that AC up today. Bad news, yeah, I think we've broken the planet.

Ya know, I'm from Illinois, and when I was a kid growing up even in the early 80s, the AC stayed off until it was hot.

There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.

I'll assume you have just not read those papers, as that is the only way you could describe them as independent of models without abject misrepresentation.

CruJones:Can someone pull a graph starting in like year 10,000BC? Seriously. I'm curious, I have no idea what it would look like, but starting in the 90s or even 70s for that matter is far too small a sample size.

anarchy_x just gave you that, upthread. The bottom line is: we were on our way to another ice-age, but global warming is saving our asses, this time. Of course, having multiplied a little since then, and by now living happily on coast-lines etc, we will have to move a little and there might not be enough to eat for everyone, but other than that: no problems.

Baryogenesis:CruJones: Can someone pull a graph starting in like year 10,000BC? Seriously. I'm curious, I have no idea what it would look like, but starting in the 90s or even 70s for that matter is far too small a sample size.

A 30 year sample size actually isn't too short to talk about climate trends. Remember, we're talking about the effect that human CO2 emissions have on global temperatures. Longer time scales have different forcings to consider, like orbital fluctuations driving past ice ages and interglacial periods. Looking at a 10,000 year timescale won't help us figure out what will happen in the next 10, 25, 50 or 100 years.

But, for reference:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 600x400]

That's not entirely true; we know enough about history from the last 2000 years (which is a relevant timeframe within those 10000 years), to make some general predictions.

justGreg:common sense is an oxymoron: justGreg: Baryogenesis: justGreg: You'd think some of that positive feedback from the models would eke its way into the actual observed data at some point, wouldn't you.

The planet's 'climate sensitivity' is the expected temperature increase from a doubling of pre industrial atmospheric CO2 (280ppm to 560ppm, currently at ~390ppm). Studies have shown a range between +1.5 C to +6C or even higher with +3C being the most likely figure. So no, I wouldn't expect to see a spike in warming just yet. The predicted warming is also neither A) instantaneous nor B) monotonically increasing. It's not as if adding CO2 today will automatically mean an increase in temperature tomorrow.

The oceans are also absorbing the vast majority of the added heat. So, if you're looking for data that shows a stronger increase, here:

Pretty much every other scientific discipline would laugh at the idea of claiming "studies have shown" when they really mean "speculative academic papers based not on observational data but on unvalidated computer models have claimed". Gotta love climate science, where the bar is low but the arrogance is high.

Um, that graph IS based on observed data.

Problem?

Citation? Looks like a picture from the skeptical science blog, and I'm pretty sure it is based on work from Trenberth using models to try and explain why the global temperatures and SST don't reflect the level of warming the models expect. In other words, pretty much the opposite of observational data, and exactly the kind of marginal methodology I am talking about.

Try this. It's also from Skeptical Science, but they provide links to the original papers, in this case by Levitus et al. Link

I read an article in the Financial Times recently that said that the Mississippi is only a couple of weeks from reaching such low levels that shipping will have to stop in some places, trapping $7 billion in goods upstream of the blockages.

Try to remember the last time that happened.

It might be nice to avoid the snow, but unhappily the lost snow is a major source of water in the Spring and it also protects the ground during the Winter. Without it, things that might live through the Winter die, while things that might die in the Winter live. Bad news for farmers because if it doesn't get cold enough, insect pests will be plentiful the following year; while if there isn't enough snow; water levels will be low or come at the wrong time. The snow is also just above freezing, so it protects many plants, insects and animals, some of which are beneficial, some harmful but all part of the system.

All in all, the climate has been changing in many ways, poorly understood in some cases (snow and ice being particularly ambiguous and difficult to predict) and this is not really good news for the economy or the ecology.

Wednesday, cold and blustery winds.Thursday, went outside in a sweater, had to take it off half way through the day, it was so warm out.friday, different sweater, nearly froze to death during the daytoday. ...It is snowing outside.

/it is climate CHANGE, you morons, not just "warming"//that whole "Sandy" business? Yeah, that, only more of them///waiting for Katrina 2 next year////Obama hates black ... wait a minute

brantgoose:I read an article in the Financial Times recently that said that the Mississippi is only a couple of weeks from reaching such low levels that shipping will have to stop in some places, trapping $7 billion in goods upstream of the blockages.

Try to remember the last time that happened.

It might be nice to avoid the snow, but unhappily the lost snow is a major source of water in the Spring and it also protects the ground during the Winter. Without it, things that might live through the Winter die, while things that might die in the Winter live. Bad news for farmers because if it doesn't get cold enough, insect pests will be plentiful the following year; while if there isn't enough snow; water levels will be low or come at the wrong time. The snow is also just above freezing, so it protects many plants, insects and animals, some of which are beneficial, some harmful but all part of the system.

All in all, the climate has been changing in many ways, poorly understood in some cases (snow and ice being particularly ambiguous and difficult to predict) and this is not really good news for the economy or the ecology.

Why would it be bad for the ecology? The Earth doesn't care what temperature it is, and no matter how many plants or animals die off, others will replace them.

Baryogenesis:EVERYBODY PANIC: Baryogenesis: DrPainMD: 279 days? That's not even close to a record. Des Moines has had streaks of no snow that lasted hundreds of thousands of years.

I live with my mom

Everywhere on earth has had wet spells and dry spells, cold times and warm times - if you look back far enough. The world appears to be warming a bit during the present period. It might be from man-made causes, but other factors should also be investigated. And should the planet actually go up or down a couple degrees in this century, it will certainly have consequences, both good and bad. Whatever happens, mankind will do what it always does... deal with it.

Many are easily frightened, believing that warming will have mostly negative consequences. They may be right, but temperature fluctuations tend to include benefits. We will survive it, and we will adjust. That's how we roll. Cooling will have greater consequences, for we will lose habitable areas and croplands will be greatly diminished. Cooling equals famine. Cooling equals FLorida becoming less muggy. Goes both ways.

The downsides of climate change outweigh the benefits.Stern Review, Economics of Climate Change (pdf)Positives and negatives of global warming

Predictions? Based on computer models? Don't get me started. I've been a software engineer for 25 years, and you can't accurately model anything complex unless you know ALL the variables (they don't know this), EXACTLY how all the variables affect each other (they don't know this), and what the EXACT initial state of the variables are (they certainly don't know this).

There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.

Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.Chylek 2007 examines the period from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. They calculate a climate sensitivy range of 1.3°C and 2.3°C.Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.Bender 2010 looks at the climate response to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption to constrain climate sensitivity to 1.7 to 4.1°C.

I'll assume you have just not read those papers, as that is the only way you could describe them as independent of models without abject misrepresentation.

What are you babbling about? You asked for climate sensitivity based on empirical data and that's what I gave you. Are you just going to keep saying all papers on the subject are wrong because you say so?

DrPainMD:Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

2005 was not the warmest year the planet has ever seen. Sounds like you're the one who's cherry picking.

Jesus motherfarking Christ, you put "on record" in bold and still couldn't figure out what it meant. I obviously have to spell this out for you since you're a colossal moron: 'on record' doesn't include the 4.5 billion year history of the planet just the part we have, you know, recorded.

DrPainMD:Predictions? Based on computer models? Don't get me started. I've been a software engineer for 25 years, and you can't accurately model anything complex unless you know ALL the variables (they don't know this), EXACTLY how all the variables affect each other (they don't know this), and what the EXACT initial state of the variables are (they certainly don't know this).

Speculation is speculation.

The colossal moron strikes again. We don't need perfect information to understand the large scale problems we'll face adapting to a warmer world. No one is trying to predict annual rainfall in Nebraska to the hundredth of an inch. It's more like determining the impact of +2C on water resources and crop yields in vulnerable areas. For example, the heat wave in Europe in 2003 had a huge impact on crop yields. We don't need to know the exact drop in total bushels of corn to understand that higher temperatures and reduced rainfall will negatively affect crops.

This gets confusing. Too much snowfall in Europe is blamed on global warming, too little snowfall in Des Moines is blamed on global warming.

Actually it would be global cooling that explains it: here is why.1. A global cooling cycle means that generally there is LESS moister in the air to produce the snow (warm waters produce the upward water. (funny thing low pressure can do it too; but you have to have the cool temps to get the low pressure).2. If the planet cools the flow of cool water out of the polar areas slows, this means the warm water that would have been displaced in the global cycle does not make it to the polar regions to warm them. - translation temps drop in the polar region, central regions warm due to lack of cooling.3. Since it is cold in the polar, seaward areas have a lower pressue brining cold ready to freeze water into the admosphear which drops back as snow. Des Moines not being on the sea side does not get this snow; but the colder temps mean that the mositure that would produce snow does not.4. Sublimation - the process of going from a solid to a gas without becoming a liquid. You can see this in ice cubes in your freezer. If you have frozen cubes today, but smaller cubes tomorrow that does not mean the average temp of your freezer went from -5F to -2F thereby melting them; thats reeeeediculous. In reality what happenes as your freezer does its job the temp drops, the molecules on the surface leap off like spider man one at a time, so it never forms a liquid - just becomes a gas. So the cubes get smaller as this mono-layer strips away.

Trust me, this is not rocket surgery and it is not global warming; it is more likley global cooling.

How is going one day over the previous record shattering that record? We use the word "shatter" when a record is beaten by a substantial margin. One day breaks the record, but by no means shatters it. Since it is snowing in Des Moines right now, the record won't extend any further.

cfroelic:How is going one day over the previous record shattering that record? We use the word "shatter" when a record is beaten by a substantial margin. One day breaks the record, but by no means shatters it. Since it is snowing in Des Moines right now, the record won't extend any further.

Baryogenesis:DrPainMD: Baryogenesis: For those who don't know, 2005 is the warmest year on record so starting a graph there will show flat or declining warming trend. Deniers love cherry picking.

2005 was not the warmest year the planet has ever seen. Sounds like you're the one who's cherry picking.

Jesus motherfarking Christ, you put "on record" in bold and still couldn't figure out what it meant. I obviously have to spell this out for you since you're a colossal moron: 'on record' doesn't include the 4.5 billion year history of the planet just the part we have, you know, recorded.

In other words, yes, you were cherry picking your data as you were complaining about other people cherry picking their data. And I'm the moron?

DrPainMD: Predictions? Based on computer models? Don't get me started. I've been a software engineer for 25 years, and you can't accurately model anything complex unless you know ALL the variables (they don't know this), EXACTLY how all the variables affect each other (they don't know this), and what the EXACT initial state of the variables are (they certainly don't know this).

Speculation is speculation.

The colossal moron strikes again. We don't need perfect information to understand the large scale problems we'll face adapting to a warmer world. No one is trying to predict annual rainfall in Nebraska to the hundredth of an inch. It's more like determining the impact of +2C on water resources and crop yields in vulnerable areas. For example, the heat wave in Europe in 2003 had a huge impact on crop yields. We don't need to know the exact drop in total bushels of corn to understand that higher temperatures and reduced rainfall will negatively affect crops.

What I'm saying is that climate cannot be modeled accurately, and it has nothing to do with programming technique or computer power. You can't get around the butterfly effect just like you can't accelerate past the speed of light. That's not moronic, that's the way it is. Using models to predict climate change so you can prepare for it won't work, because the climate, while always changing, will not change the way the models predict; you're preparing for an event that won't happen. Again, I've got 25 years experience... how much do you have (let me guess: none)? Let's make it interesting: take whatever prediction (say 10 or 20 years into the future) you think is the best one, and I'll wager any amount you'd like that it turns out to be wrong. I'll even give you good odds.